Irish Minister for Education Ruairi Quinn’s decision to cut students’ maintenance grants has been labelled as “unfair and unjust” and has lead to High Court proceedings (brought by a group of students). Changes to students’ maintenance grants were signalled in December 2010 by the previous Irish government. The student plaintiffs have the support of the Union of Students of Ireland. Click here to see an article by the Independent http://www.independent.ie/national-news/courts/students-in-legal-action-over-cuts-3030520.html
Meanwhile, in Hurley and Moore v Secretary for State for Business, Innovation and Skills, the English High Court has dismissed an application to quash regulations relating to capping university fees. The secondary student applicants argued that such a cap would have an adverse effect on those from a disadvantaged or marginalised background to obtain university places. They claimed that the cap breached Article 2 Protocol 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
In their judgment, Elias LJ and King J cited Lord Brown’s 2010 review into University Funding and highlighted that its provisions were “designed to widen access, including loans, grants and scholarships.” They commented that it would take an extreme case to find that the mere fact of charging fees breached the Article 2 right.
The court also dismissed the plaintiffs’ reliance on Article 13(2)(c) of the International Covenant on Economic Social and Cultural Rights, which provides that higher education shall be made equally accessible to all by every appropriate means (including progressive introduction of free education) – finding that the Convention is not binding and the introduction of progressive education was not an absolute obligation. The Court mentioned the fact that the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, which monitors compliance with the Convention, has expressed concern that the introduction of tuition fees in the UK appears to be inconsistent with the Covenant.
The court concluded in this decision that the Secretary of State had not properly exercised his equality duties when assessing the impact of the changes, but a quashing order would cause “administrative chaos”.
Click here to read the judgment.
Click here to see a detailed piece on the Hurley case on UK Human Rights Blog.